Today I went to a blood drive held by the American Red Cross. It was my first time so I didn't really know what to expect. They handed me forms to fill out and I did so. One of the questions was "Are you a male who has had sex with another male since 1977?" Wanting to answer truthfully, I responded "yes". My number was called and I went to the woman who proceeded to ask me questions. After examining my arms and asking me a few health related questions, she asked me if if I had had sex with another male? I once again answered yes, and she asked me the dates. Then she checked her manual and said that I was to be deferred because doing that is deemed "risky behaviour."

I was kinda sad because I thought that if I could at least do one good thing in the world it would be to sacrifice 500mL of my (clean) blood. When they told me I couldn't, and that I would now be on a permanent deferral list it was kind of a shock.

I realize their reasons for doing those background checks...these days you can't be too careful, but I'm not a promiscuous person, and the few times I have had sex in my life, it's all been protected. So, here's my question: Do you think it's right of the Red Cross to not allow gay men (didn't say anything about women) to not be able to donate their blood because of the slightly higher risk for HIV/AIDS? Statistically speaking there are more HIV infected straight men and woman who are infected than there are gay men, and I know they have tests to prove if there is the virus present. I know furthermore that the reason they don't want to take the chance is because of some contingencies that may happen while the blood is in transit before it has been tested. However, I think in this day in age 99 per cent of people are responsible enough to not give blood if they are doing things truly risky.

So, do you agree or disagree that gay men should NOT be allowed to donate blood to the American Red Cross?

I don't really have a comment about allowing gays to donate. However, there is nothing you can do once put on the deferral list. I am on the list because I had a increased liver enzyme. It was only 2% higher than normal and when I went to the doctor, he said even though it slightly high, there is nothing wrong with my blood.

As far as the HIV rate being higher in heterosexuals than homosexuals, that was not always the case. It is because of the many bisexuals and needle users.

I think it is a stupid and totally discriminatory policy. On the whole, gay men are no more of a risk to use blood from than straight men and women, or lesbians, for that matter. It is a lie that we are more of a risk group, and the mentality of the people behind this ridiculous, antiquated, prejudiced policy sickens me. I think that we should give blood just like any other group of people.

Same thing happened to me. Had my AIDS test results and asked if they screened the blood. They said "yes" so I asked them why I couldn't donate and they said I was "a risk". The Hell with 'em I donate to the United Way out of my payroll check for the St Louis Effort For AIDS. Look into that (United Way, you pick the charity).

Oh and just to add to my statement, I have been the recipient of a major blood transfusion. I am grateful to have received blood, so I probably shouldn't be picky as to where it came from as long as its clean....

I am biased to say no. Following what you said about statistics, you are somewhat right, somewhat wrong.

Yes, there is a larger number of HIV/AIDS cases with straight people, but then look at it this way. Of the very few gay people, look at the percentages of them who have AIDS/HIV. Their percentages, based on relative position, are much higher than straight people.

Gays could lie about it on the forms. I mean, if you are clean and know that you are clean then go for it. It is for the greater good anyhow right. The Red Cross does check every sample it takes before it is put into circulation. Thats how all of the people that did not know they had HIV found out they did after 9/11. I don't really understand why they don't take everyones blood in the first place. If it comes out negetive, good. If it comes out positive, well they send you a letter. But unless there is a medical reason not to accept blood, then they should accept everyones.

NGR: Yes, percentage-wise that's true, when you look at it in terms of infected population, the gay population has a higher percentage than the straight population, however when you consider that the people who donate come from all walks of life it really doesn't matter.

I think I should also clarify, that if you have ever:
1. Offered sex for drugs or money.
2. Offered drugs or money for sex.
3. Are a female who has had sex with a male who has had sex with another male since 1977.
4. Are someone who has suffered from Creutzfeld-Jakob disease or other liver related diseases.

...you are also not allowed to donate. Obviously, there is no denying this is when many STDs (notable AIDS) entered America, but with our advanced screening technology I think that with the sample of blood they take before they take the full 500mL, they could detect any abnormalities in the blood.

I think it is an outdated and ridiculous process, we still have the same here in Australia.

However, you cannot blame the blood banks for not screening potential blood donors for all sorts of things. They have to cover their backs legally.

Even though blood is screened for any potential pathogen or disease it's vital that the blood that is delivered is disease free. Otherwise the blood banks across the world could end up in financial collapse.

To answer the above question: definately yes.
I have never heard of "straight" or "gay" blood. Blood is divided in groups and not by race, skin color or sexual orientation. I fully understand that blood banks want to eliminate the risk of receiving infected blood by handing out such forms, but Viruses tend not to choose who they are going to infect. And there is not only HIV/Aids around.
Regards Rickster

Unfortunately homosexual males are more probable to be infected with the HIV than heterosexuals and homosexual females; that´s a sad fact.

That said, homosexual males are a risk group, along with e.g. drug users or promiscuous heterosexuals. This assumption is based on sheer numbers and does not imply a statement of approval or disapproval of anyone´s lifestyle or sexual orientation.

As far as I know, the HIV cannot be detected for roughly three months after the infection. Plus people might consider themselves clean but aren´t, for whatever reason.

Taking all that into account, no groups of persons who, regarded as a whole group, are more likely than the average population to be infected with the HIV should be allowed to donate blood.

And please don´t lie when it comes to determining whether you´re a member of a risk group - the whole system relies on sincerity.

Airsicknesbag said:That said, homosexual males are a risk group, along with e.g. drug users or promiscuous heterosexuals. This assumption is based on sheer numbers and does not imply a statement of approval or disapproval of anyone´s lifestyle or sexual orientation.

I couldn't agree more.

Galilee wrote:Gays could lie about it on the forms. I mean, if you are clean and know that you are clean then go for it. It is for the greater good anyhow right.

Galilee. Frankly, I'm a little shocked that you would say something like this. I find that concept morally unacceptable and socially irresponsible. The safety of the entire public relies on the integrity of system's participants, and you are suggesting a practice that would degrade that safety. It is not right to put many at risk so that a few can feel good about themselves. The end does not justify the means.

That's OK, I find classifying an entire group of people as not eligible to give blood just because of their sexual orientation morally unacceptable and socially irresponsible.

I've been involved in an HIV vaccine study the last 3 years. In order to be in the study, you must be HIV negative. I've been tested every 6 months for the last 3 years. Yet I wouldn't be eligible to donate blood just because I'm gay. Yet there are women who have never used a condom who can donate no problem.

Most people still don't understand how HIV is transmitted: primarily through semen coming into contact with mucous membranes... thus it isn't even all gay men that are more susceptible to HIV infection... only those that have receptive anal sex, and that's only a portion of the gay population.

Whatever.

An unexamined life isn't worth living.

25 SK A340
: The blood test should decide wether you are allowed to give blood or not. Here in Sweden, everyone who want's to give blood has to leave a blood samp

26 Sophiemaltese
: Yeah, I can agree that classifying a group of people as not eligable simply because of their sexual orientation is wrong. Not all gay men conduct them

27 Galilee
: You're right, I should not have said it like I did. The ends do not justify the means, I could not agree more. It was a stupid thing to say. I really